We’ve decided to split our expanded explanation into two parts, so that we do not overwhelm people. From what we’ve seen on the blogs so far, there appear to be 2 main areas of confusion: 1) the size of the GH effect. Most people have a hard time wrapping their minds around the fact the atmosphere boosts the surface temperature by well over 100K; and 2) the physical nature of the pressure-controlled thermal enhancement. Although, this follows seamlessly from the gas law, most people (including PhD scientists) appear to be totally confused as to how precisely the effect of pressure works or is even possible. So, this will be topic of our reply Part 2.

(a) The term Greenhouse Effect (GE) is inherently misleading due to the fact that the free atmosphere, imposing no restriction on convective cooling, does not really work as a closed greenhouse.
(b) ATE accurately conveys the physical essence of the phenomenon, which is the temperature boost at the surface due to the presence of atmosphere;
(c) Reasoning in terms of ATE (Atmospheric Thermal Effect) vs. GE (Greenhouse effect) helps broaden the discussion beyond radiative transfer; and
(d) Unlike GE, the term Atmospheric Thermal Effect implies no underlying physical mechanism(s).

We start with the undisputable fact that the atmosphere provides extra warmth to the surface of Earth compared to an airless environment such as on the Moon. This prompts two basic questions:
(1) What is the magnitude of this extra warmth, i.e. the size of ATE ? and (2) How does the atmosphere produce it, i.e. what is the physical mechanism of ATE ? In this reply we address the first question.

The pdf is available here. UTC_Blog_Reply_Part-1
Please try to focus on the content of the pdf in comments to this thread. We can carry on posting our general thoughts about the overall theory and how best to formulate our understanding of the proposed gravity effect on the existing threads – thanks.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

“Gravity maintains TWO energy gradients. One kinetic and one potential. The kinetic gradient decreases with altitude and the potential gradient increases with altitude. The two opposing gradients cancel out and the column is isogenergetic. This is how you can have a perpetual temperature gradient yet not be able to extract any work from it for a perpetual motion machine – a temperature gradient can be nullified by an equal but opposite gradient of energy in a different form. You can’t connect the cold and hot sides of the atmosphere without climbing up in a gravity well and the useful energy represented by the change in temperature is exactly used up by the energy required to climb uphill against gravity. The books thus balance and conservation of energy is once again safe from the abuses of junk science.”

and

“Let us hope that it will help people here at last distinguish (a) the once-and-for-all INACCESSIBLE kinetic energy stored up billions of years ago when the Earth slowly accreted matter, from (b) the constant flow of ACCESSIBLE energy through the atmosphere due to the Sun.

It is the latter, not the former energy that gives rise to an air temperature that is in proportion to air density (and therefore in proportion to height above the surface) in strict accordance with the Ideal Gas Laws. ”

Brilliant, chaps.

Although I didn’t see a purely gravitationally induced temperature gradient as essential to the N & Z description it did seem possible that there might be one. The above comments square the circle perfectly.

“1) We are NOT calculating the solar radiation on half sphere! Read our paper one more time”.

I think BenAW is referring to the inner limits of integration shown in the first of the four steps leading to equation (5) in your “Response to Comments” paper – which are different from the inner limits in your original Tgb equation (2) and in the subsequent steps towards equation (5) in the “Response” paper.

Until I saw your Figure 1 in the “Response to Comments” paper, I could not follow your integral calculus steps for equation (2). But when I saw the inner limits for mu [= cos(theta)] as being from -1 to 1 [and from 0 to 2 x pi for “psi”] in reference to your Figure 1, I also realized that you were probably integrating over a hemisphere.

That is the correct thing to do in this instance, since the average over the full sphere is the same, both hemispheres having the same irradiance pattern and hence the same average temperature.

The inner limits in that fist step towards equation (5) – from “-1 to 1″ – appear correct (for me). The other inner limits (from 0 to 1) do not, as the inner integration is then being done from theta = 90 (at the pole) to theta = 180 degrees (on the dark side equator), i.e over the “unlit” quadrant of the meridian, rather than over the full, semi-cirle (or half) meridian, half of which is in shadow and half in sunlight. I believe the true “average” should include both lit and unlit halves of the hemisphere.

I hope my memory of integral calculus from the 1970’s is still valid and that the above analysis is correct. I will welcome correction if it is not.

Why are you, fellows, engaging in a fruitless science discussion with a guy (Willis), who publicly admits that he has no science credentials at all and no science education??

He also has demonstrated a high illiteracy in math. He is just a construction manager! Arguing with people with no expertise in a subject matter is a waste of time and counterproductive. Please, leave Willis alone, as he is a learner, and do not pay attention to his opinions!

I am waiting patiently for a reply to my post yesterday (David Socrates says:
January 23, 2012 at 7:34 pm).

I am crossing my fingers hoping you understand and agree with it. In my opinion, we urgently need to align Hoffman’s work properly with yours. Hoffman hasn’t found a flaw in your math but, I believe, he has found a significant over-complication around your use of the planetary ‘grey body’ concept which he doesn’t need. If removed it would simplify things significantly.

No worries Ned, I think the smart ones are already well aware of the sick games currently being played, it’s a real shame. Why certain persons refuse to help and instead hurt I’ll never know. Science has drifted far away from my long ago experiences with it.

There is nothing to align between Hoffman’s ‘work’ and ours. He simply tried to express (cast) our gray-body temperature equation in terms of the conventional black-body model. This does not alter in any way the theoretical implications of our work regarding the effect of pressure on the surface thermal enhancement (ATE). Hoffman appears to have not even understood these theoretical implications, because he says he is surprised that pressure can alter the black-body temperature of a planet. Also, his mathematical simplification of our Eq. 6 only confuses the main point we tried to make in our reply paper, which is that one SHOULD NOT use the average absorbed radiation by a sphere to calculate the actual mean temperature of that sphere. The confusion arises from the fact that Hoffman’s modified black-body equation contains the therm (So/4), which is the AVERAGE radiation absorbed by a sphere … In summary, his ‘simplification’ only worsens the accuracy of our Eq. 8 in predicting planetary temperatures without providing any additional insight …

Re. you various postings about the validity of the N&Z math, it seems that the warmist camp has not found fault with it, which is of course excellent news.

For what it is worth by way of an additional endorsement, not being myself entirely confident about spherical geometry (am I alone?) but being an mere IT professional, I wrote a program to do the spherical temerature averaging by random finite iteration across the surface. After 10,000 random samples, the average temperature came to 154.7 K.

I strongly support his Thermostat Hypothesis as far as it goes but he refuses to put it into a wider perspective. He seems to be emotionally invested in it being all there is to say.

There are two ways that the Thermostat Hypothesis needs to be extended for it to be helpful but he has refused to entertain such a possibility in exchanges with me in the past.

Firstly it needs to be extended globally. Just focusing on the convective processes in the tropics is insufficient especially since top down solar effects appear to sometimes oppose and sometimes supplement equatorial effects on the climate system. Unless his hypothesis forms part of the global interplay between sun and oceans it is worthless.

Secondly, (and here I link the issue to this thread) he needs to connect the atmospheric response that he has observed in the tropics with the very facts that Nikolov and Zeller are patiently but firmly highlighting.

I consider that atmospheric pressure is indeed paramount in the climate system. Not only in setting the adiabatic lapse rate in the air but also in limiting the rate at which energy can flow from oceans to air as I have explained elsewhere.

Taking those two factors together I aver that as a consequence the climate system as a whole including the tropical convective cells is simply the Earth system in the process of responding negatively to any influence that seeks to drive the atmospheric lapse rate away from that which is determined by atmospheric pressure and solar input.

So there is indeed a thermostat but it is set by atmospheric pressure and the atmosphere will always reorganise itself on a constantly changing basis so as to stabilise and keep stabilised the global energy budget such that the adiabatic lapse rate is always maintained on an averaged global basis.

That must be so because the adiabatic lapse rate determines the only stable arrangement for the continuance of an atmosphere in gaseous form.

If for any reason the atmosphere failed to match the adiabatic lapse rate then there would be an ongoing and cumulative surplus or deficit as regards the global energy budget.

A little too much energy going out would over time lower global temperatures so much that it would congeal the consituents of the atmosphere on the surface of the planet.

A little too much energy being retained would over time raise global temperatures until the atmospheric molecules gained enough kinetic energy to be lost to space.

It is the GHG theory that is the true Perpetuum Mobile because it proposes an imbalance that would add to the ATE of Nikolov and Zeller on a permanent basis.

If GHGs could do that then their own supposed greenhouse characteristics would create an ever building energy content in the atmosphere as more GHGs caused more GHGs in the form of water vapour in the amplification process that AGW theory sets out but what would ever stop it other than the loss of atmosphere to space

The AGW theory is actually the opposite of the truth. In reality GHGs help to prevent a build up of energy in the atmosphere by radiating out to space so as to make it easier for the atmosphere to be maintained at the lapse rate set by sun and pressure.

I’m not familiar with Willis’ ‘Thermostatic Theory’, but based on the way he thinks and his inability to comprehends simple concepts, I would be surprised if his theory amounts to anything serious.

There is a principle in physical science that if you cannot put an idea into a mathematical form (i.e. describe it with equations) and verify the math model against actual observations, you cannot claim of having a viable theory. Willis is mathematically illiterate! This became obvious in the discussion he had at WUWT about the integral of our Eq. 5. He was told by several people that our integration is correct and that he was mistaken, and he was explained why. Yet, Willis kept asking the same question over and over again about the integration of nighttime temperatures. Then he goes on to publish an ‘analysis’ of our Eq. 7 (called The mysteries of Eq. 7) that makes an educated person shake his head because of the blatant errors in the analysis and a clear lack of knowledge about how to re-arrange a simple equation … Add to this Willis’ own admission that he had no science education and no science credentials whatsoever, yet he lavishly gives his opinion and promotes his climate theories at various events, and you get a picture of a mentally confused individual, who cannot even comprehend his limitations!

It’s a pretty sad situation, but that’s what you get when you allow a construction manager to run the skeptic’s climate show! … The skeptics camp will never be taken seriously if lead by people such as Willis with no science credentials and laughable reputation … That is the reality!

[Willis] also has demonstrated a high illiteracy in math. He is just a construction manager! Arguing with people with no expertise in a subject matter is a waste of time and counterproductive. Please, leave Willis alone, as he is a learner, and do not pay attention to his opinions!

Oh yes indeed Ned: Amongst some hilarious claims that he has made to me, one of my favorites is:

…for a most curious form of energy transport, consider that it is not always heat that flows in natural systems, sometimes it is cold that flows in natural systems. Not only that, but cold it can flow in either direction (warmer to colder, or colder to warmer). Go figure … nature is full of surprises.

Then there is his two-layer version of the Trenberth Earth’s Energy Budget cartoon, that he recently proudly re-presented a few months ago, that was also mentioned in the thread linked-to above.
Oh and, and, there has been….where to stop!

Willi’s analysis is actually called “The Mysteries of Equation 8″, not 7 as a stated above, but it’s the same gibberish …

Another mystery is; why Anthony Watts seems to regard Willis as a guru or One who knows everything? I’m beginning to suspect that it is more a matter that Willis is a great generator of controversy, which results in high comment traffic. I’ve also seen some comments that suggest that Willis is a troll, and in effect that he fishes for angry reactions. I only hope that Anthony considers the possibility that his highest traffic may well be lurkers (non-commenting readers), and that they might be put-off by all this rubbish. My following comment is mirrored from one I made at WUWT, and is relevant to my attitude in this:

Since you asked, I had a quick look at his new article, but have no interest in it, and anyway, the point I was making is independent of the maths. It will be interesting to see how it goes, and I can just follow the reports over at Tallbloke’s, without risking breaking out in hives visiting a Willis thread.

Bob, You made a good point about the web traffic and Willis’ possible contribution to it.

I just sent this email to Anthony. He replied that he would publish my response if I submit it to him officially, which I will.

I truly believe that we need weed out the amateurs and non-professional from the climate science debate at this point, or the Truth will never see the light of day.

————————–
Anthony,

I have not seen so far a SINGLE meaningful criticism of our theory! What Willi’s put out is just a reflection of his math confusion on a high-school level! His arguments are so ridiculous that no self-respecting scientist would even consider responding to such gibberish. Let me briefly address all the main points Willis raises:

1) He claims that our Eq. 8 (in the original paper) reduces to Ts = Ts, which makes him exclaims TA-DA at the end. What he failed to comprehend (which is a simple math BTW) is that Eq. 8 was derived from Eq. 7 by simply solving the latter for Ts. Specifically:

Solving this for the surface temperature Ts yields Ts = Tgb*exp (0.233001*Ps^0.0651203 + 0.0015393*Ps^0.385232 ) or briefly stated Ts = Tgb* NTE(Ts).
This is basically our Eq. 8! In the text, however, Tgb is given with its actual expression for the gray-body temperature (Tgb) from our Eq. 2.

2) He also claims that the constant 25.3966 in front of our Eq. 8, i.e.

Ts = 25.3966 (So + 0.0001325)^0.25 NTE(Ps)

is a ‘tune parameter’, which he labels t5. This confusion is directly related to the one above. He simply failed to understand that the whole term 25.3966 (So + 0.0001325)^0.25 comes from our Eq. 2 for calculating the gray-body temperature, where 25.3966 = (2/5)*[(1 – α)/(ϵσ)]^0.25. In other words, 25.3966 is simply a combination of several constants assumed in the gray-body formula (Eq. 2). It is NOT any kind of a ‘tune’ or regression parameter, because the gray-body formula (Eq. 2) was derived BEFORE the regression curve in Eq. 7.

Do you follow the absurdity of Willis arguments, so far?

3) He argues that the small constant Cs in Eq. 2 is pointless failing to realize that its purpose is to make Eq. 2 produce a gray-body temperature of 2.725K (which is the irreducible temp of Deep Space), when there is no radiation (So = 0). This constant adds a greater realism to predictions from Eq. 2, and has no adverse implications in our concept whatsoever.

4) Willis further claims that we have used 5 ‘tunable parameters’ (counting t5 above) to fit the data. In reality we only have 4 regression coefficients relating NTE to pressure in Eq. 7. These 4 coefficients define a curve that passes accurately through 8 data points. What is highly significant, and Willis totally failed to grasp is the fact that the Ts/Tgb ratio (the enhancement factor) is so precisely related to pressure across 8 very diverse planetary bodies from Mercury to Triton with vastly different atmospheres and solar illumination (see Fig. 5). The shape of this function is VERY similar to the adiabatic curve described by the Gas Law (via the Poisson formula ) as explained in the text of our paper and shown in Fig. 6. This similarity is NOT a coincidence! It indicates that the thermal enhancement factor (NTE) and the adiabatic heating have a common underlying mechanism related to the pressure force. All this apparently flew straight over Willi’s head, which is not surprising, since he has no science education!

The reason we used an exponential regression curve with 4 free parameters is because the NTE-Pressure relationship is extremely non-linear and could not be accurately described with lesser number of parameters. Note that we did not fit a 4th order polynomial to the planetary data point, but an exponential curve! A 4th order polynomial can fit a variety of shapes, but an exponential curve can only fit a very limited number of responses. Finally, fitting a physically meaningful curve to data points is a perfectly accepted scientific method when studying an unknown phenomenon. One cannot use ‘first principles’ on something that’s poorly known and/or embodies new mechanisms. The whole criticism of our regression fit by Willis is totally baseless and unscientific!

If you have been able to follow my explanation above, please, tell me how Willi’s paper could constitute a legitimate scientific criticism in the light of this evidence. The guy is simply confused, plain and simple! Like I said before he is mathematically illiterate! Having people like him represent the climate skeptics community and arguing science issues is an EMBARRASSMENT. Who do you think in the science community on the other side will take someone like Willis seriously? …. We have the strongest and physically most robust theory EVER proposed as an alternative to the current GH concept. If you have any physical science background at all, I urge you to read carefully our papers and think deeper. I’m willing to help you by answering any questions you may have … Don’t take science advice from amateurs like Willis! It is a recipe for disaster in the long run.

Now, do you want me to put this in an official reply that you could publish, or would you rather remove Willis is paper from your website with an appropriate clarification?

Dr Nikolov“These 4 coefficients define a curve that passes accurately through 8 data points. What is highly significant, and Willis totally failed to grasp is the fact that the Ts/Tgb ratio (the enhancement factor) is so precisely related to pressure across 8 very diverse planetary bodies from Mercury to Triton with vastly different atmospheres and solar illumination (see Fig. 5).”

This is not true. Table 1 of your paper did not attempt to provide a mean Surface Temperature from Gas Law for Mercury or the Moon. You have claimed a fit using four parameters for six data points.

In my opinion, for what it is worth, N&Z are now well ahead on points. With the correct application of SB calculations, used to explain empirical planetary data in a simple exponential curve fit, any amount of arm waving is just noise – until someone falsifies the analysis. This has not yet happened, and nobody seems close to doing so.

I do, however, regret the war between this site and WUWT. WUWT has done an immense amount of good in recent years and while this may not be their finest hour I think that both sides should try to resolve their differences amicably, shake hands and walk away. It does not matter who started it -this is the way that gentlemen behave.

And please, remember who the real enemy is – the trillion dollar carbon fraud!

What kind of a temperature estimate would you get from the Gas Law if there is no gas, i.e. when pressure is virtually zero (in case of Mercury and the Moon, P = 0.000000009 Pa)?? You get 0K.

On a planet with no atmosphere, the temperature must equal that of the gray body. Our Eq. 8 produces exactly that – the gray-body temperature when P -> 0, hence the curve passes straight to Mercury and the Moon…

I have a hard time understanding one thing – why most people on these blogs lack basic logic skills and commonsense, not to mention any decent math knowledge? Also, why some people are so unable to see the big picture her. What’s most significant in our analysis is the discovery that relative atmospheric thermal enhancement (ATEn) is so closely related to pressure across planetary bodies spanning a wide range of atmospheric compositions and illumination conditions. This relationship is fully supported by the Gas Law as evident from the similarity between response curves of ATEn (Eq. 7) and and the adiabatic temperature change in Fig. (6).

I agree! What seems to be happening with the discussion at WUWT is that some folks has confused the debate with an EGO contest. My understanding is that we are having these discussions first and foremost to resolve the AGW confusion with science tools, and it matters not who provides those tools as long as they a solid and can be used effectively in arguing with the other side …

The climate issue is its root a science issue, not a political one! Trying to resolve a physics science issue with fuzzy soft political tools is like trying to carve a block of granite with a copper chisel – it will never work, because the chisel will bend and deform …

You say: “The climate issue is its root a science issue, not a political one! Trying to resolve a physics science issue with fuzzy soft political tools is like trying to carve a block of granite with a copper chisel – it will never work, because the chisel will bend and deform …”

Thererby, in my opinion, lies a problem. Only people with a good grounding in physics can even understand these issues, while the fraudsters get rich on the back of the greatest scientific fraud in history.

In my opinion this can only be stopped with ideas – ideas that lead to perspectives, which lead to understanding. This understanding must then be communicated to people who elect politicians. And thereby lies another problem – when even physicists disagree with each other, how can we convince anybody else?

But that is not your problem – your problem is the physics. I have tried my best to falsify your theory and I have so far failed to do so. This is the scientific method.

Eq. 5 only applies to gray bodies, i.e. planets with no atmosphere. In the presence of atmosphere, surface temperature at each point is no longer a simple function of the incident solar angle (cosθ), and becomes dependent on air circulation and the overall amount of energy in the atmosphere. At high enough pressures such as on Venus, where the surface becomes nearly isothermal, the temperature is completely independent of the solar angle. Higher pressure not only raises the average planetary surface temperature, but it also creates a more isothermal (equable) environment (with smaller temperature differences between poles and the equator, and between day and night). This is because of the increased efficiency of lateral heat transport by the atmosphere.

So, there is no physical meaning in having a triple integral in Eq.5… :-)

Folks we also have detractors on WUWT – here’s a post I just made that might enlighten:

Willis says …. “they claim to be able to calculate the surface temperature Ts of eight different planets and moons from knowing nothing more than the solar irradiation So and the surface pressure Ps for each heavenly body. Dr. Zeller refers to this as their MIRACLE equation…” …..”My simplified version of their equation looks like this: Ts = 25.394 * Solar^0.25 * e^(0.092 * Pressure ^ 0.17)” = A SIMPLER MIRACLE

You folks just don’t get it do you, you’re not seeing the forest for the trees: Willis’ rendition of our MIRACLE is also a MIRACLE!!!!!!! What is the Miracle you don’t see? We calculate the average global equilibrium surface temperature on any planet/moon using only Solar input and surface pressure! Why is this a miracle? Because it implys that the AGW theory is bogus. Why does it do that? Since the average global surface temperature of any planet/moon IS the basic bottomline determinator of that planet/moon’s climate and our Eq 8 accurately calculates this temperature without using greenhouse gas information.
Dr. Nikolov & I have been working on this for over 2 years, our first attempts looked like Willis’ simpler miracle, and we’ve played with density also, but we are trying to get it exact, currently Eq 8. You CAN NOT fit an elephant with an exponential equation, you can with a polynominal. The argument about the number of constants in our equation 8 would be valid it it were a polynominal – it’s not.
We are handing WUWT ‘THE NAIL’ to the AGW coffin and you guys have forgotten about the coffin and are fixated on the details of the nail! Is it galvinized? Why isn’t it a wooden spike? They need 2 more nails. Wonder what kind of hammer they plan to use?

“Since the average global surface temperature of any planet/moon IS the basic bottomline determinator of that planet/moon’s climate and our Eq 8 accurately calculates this temperature without using greenhouse gas information.”

Well I’m not a mathematician but from basic knowledge of the Gas Laws plus real world observations I have no problem in ‘getting’ that.

Too many scientists these days are so specialised that they get lost as soon as they depart from their familiar lecture notes.

The major point that Willis missed (but follows from his own regression analysis) is that the planetary surface temperature CAN be explained in a straightforward fashion over a broad range of atmospheric conditions using ONLY pressure and solar irradiance . No other model can currently do that! This is the main point of our theory! The grand implications of the strong relationship shown in Fig. 5 (the NTE – Pressure curve) is that the so-called GH effect (we call it ATE) is a pressure phenomenon that is unrelated to radiative transfer! Hence, the GH effect in its physical nature is NOT a reduction of the surface IR cooling to space (i.e. the atmosphere does not act as ‘blanket’), but is a Pressure-induced Thermal Enhancement (PTE) … It is that simple!

Ned Nikolov says, January 24, 2012 at 8:36 pm: David Socrates: There is nothing to align between Huffman’s ‘work’ and ours. He simply tried to express (cast) our gray-body temperature equation in terms of the conventional black-body model. This does not alter in any way the theoretical implications of our work regarding the effect of pressure on the surface thermal enhancement (ATE). Huffman appears to have not even understood these theoretical implications, because he says he is surprised that pressure can alter the black-body temperature of a planet. Also, his mathematical simplification of our Eq. 6 only confuses the main point we tried to make in our reply paper, which is that one SHOULD NOT use the average absorbed radiation by a sphere to calculate the actual mean temperature of that sphere. The confusion arises from the fact that Huffman’s modified black-body equation contains the term (So/4), which is the AVERAGE radiation absorbed by a sphere … In summary, his ‘simplification’ only worsens the accuracy of our Eq. 8 in predicting planetary temperatures without providing any additional insight …

I was disappointed by this reply because I think it means you have misunderstood Huffman’s math procedure in his original work. The key thing to understand is that, contrary to your assertion, Huffman does not use a “modified black-body equation” containing “the term (So/4)”. Of all the people on the planet Harry is probably the least likely to endorse such a concept! The only sense in which his original work uses the black body concept at all is when he uses the S-B equation to convert the adjusted energy values for Earth and Venus to their correponding temperatures. And even then because he, like you is dealing with ratios, he doesn’t even need to introduce the S-B constant: he merely takes the fourth root of the relative (dimensionless) energy value ratio. So I say again as I said before, Huffman’s approach is simpler than yours because it does not require values for each planet’s ‘grey body’ emissivity or albedo. Neither do you really, because you have set them to the same values for all the planets, thus factoring them out!

I completely agree with you when you say that this issue “does not alter in any way the theoretical implications of our work regarding the effect of pressure on the surface thermal enhancement (ATE)”. I said as much to you in my original comment. My purpose is simply to show that there is a simpler way of expressing the same solution without modifying your thesis in any fundamental way. If nothing else this might help others to understand what is going on and steer them away from obsessing about ‘grey bodies’ which are completely irrelevant to the ATE part of your thesis.

Huffman has also placed his own more detailed comments on his website at:

David Socrates says: January 25, 2012 at 6:51 pmHuffman’s approach is simpler than yours because it does not require values for each planet’s ‘grey body’ emissivity or albedo. Neither do you really, because you have set them to the same values for all the planets, thus factoring them out!

I apologize for the hasty replay I fired last night … it was late and I was already tiered.

In my reply I was only referring to his ideas about simplifying our gray-body formula, which I read on his website. I’m actually not familiar in details with his method. I will definitely take a look. From what you are saying, it sounds like a viable approach.

I need to waste a bit more time replying to our favorite character Willis at WUWT before I could look at the interesting stuff … :-)

Thanks.
As a non-physicist (with a rather wonky relationship with integrals), I ‘get it’, especially when looking at the two comments you made above.

Perhaps scientists from the ‘softer’ end, like us biologists and zoologists, ‘get it’, because we can see the woods rather than get hung up on the tiny twiglets of single trees all over the place.
Perhaps we ‘get it’ because we’re used to working with incomplete data, and know that the more ‘perfect’ one tries to make one’s model, the less it will apply to a general situation.

And it may also be because most of us have spent quite some time outdoors rather than in labs, and, having learned to notice everything possible (“because you can’t go back to the same place and expect it to be exactly the same as last time you went … so never skimp on your field notes, or else!”), temperature differences between sea level and highlands (often within walking distance in these British Isles) are noted.
Thus, even without grasping all the maths at first glance, your theory has made eminent sense to me, and probably to a lot of other non-physicists.

Please, note that with respect to the GH effect, we are not talking about “more retention of energy in kinetic form for longer in denser air before it is released to space as outgoing longwave” as you stated.

We are talking about an amplification of the absorbed solar energy through the FORCE of pressure. Is is the pressure FORCE that’s responsible for the NTE factor, the relative thermal enhancement. The atmosphere has a negligibly small heat storage capacity, and does not slow down any cooling, long-wave or convective. This is the new aspect of our theory that’s 180 degrees opposite from the current understanding of the GH effect.

Heat loss by LW radiation can only be slowed down through the use of IR-reflecting surfaces such as aluminum, which have very low thermal emissivity, hence high reflectivity. That is the basis for the so-called ‘radiant barrier’ technologies pioneered by NASA 40 years ago. Aluminum sheets or folio used inside walls or special metal-oxide coatings applied to windows create IR reflecting surfaces that reduce thermal radiative losses up to 90%. High emissivity substances like water vapor and CO2 cannot reduce (slow down) thermal radiative losses…

From the original paper:
“At a planetary level, the effect is manifest in Chinook winds, where adiabatically heated downslope airflow raises the local temperature by 20C-30C in a matter of hours.”
Would you explain on how the ATE is manifest here?

How would on our planet the oceans integrate in your theory?
The watertemp. above the thermocline seems mostly solar driven.
How does atmospheric pressure heat the oceans to their average 275K?
Why is the ocean temp. slightly decreasing with depth if pressure driven?

“Heat loss by LW radiation can only be slowed down through the use of IR-reflecting surfaces such as aluminum, which have very low thermal emissivity, hence high reflectivity”

I think there might be a semantic issue between us rather than a substantive one. I didn’t mean to suggest that the LW radiation itself were slowed down but rather that the energy flow through the whole system is slowed down. In other words the energy flowing through remains as kinetic energy for longer, tied up in the vibration of the molecules in the denser air and on the surface of the ground before it even becomes outgoing LW.

I understand you started some initiative to enter some of our ideas into Wiki. I think it’s great if you could pass through their filter. I tried once to edit an article about some Egyptian measurement units, and may suggestion was not accepted. I’ve heard from others that Wiki is very conservative and they only favor mainstream knowledge, BUT thing change, so you may have a better shot than me.

I agree with you about the importance of Huffman’s work. As I said earlier, I’ll study his approach more up close next week.

I agree that “explicit integration of the SB law over the planet surface” is necessary, and I can see that integration over the top (northern) hemisphere is sufficient for that purpose, since both hemispheres have the same distribution of radiation, hence the same average temperature.

But I’m still concerned about the unexplained change in the limits of the inner integration (for variable ‘mu’) between the first and the subsequent three steps leading to equation (5) in your “Reply to Comments” paper.

The first step has ‘mu’ limits from -1 to 1; the second, third and fourth steps use ‘mu’ limits from 0 to 1, with no explanation of why that change was made. Let me call these limits Set A (-1 > 1) and Set B (0 >1) for brevity.

I understand Set A means theta ranges from 0 to pi. That describes a semicircular meridional path, from ‘sunlit equator’ to ‘dark equator’ via the ‘north (?) pole’ in your Figure 1. But Set B means theta ranges from pi/2 to 0. That describes the quarter meridian, from ‘north (?) pole’ to ‘sunlit equator’ in your Figure 1.

The accompanying text is clear about the dark hemisphere having Ti = 0 from North Pole (theta = pi/2) to the dark equator (theta = pi), and the first step in your derivation of (5) does follow, logically from that. But the unexplained change in the limits of the inner integration has caused me (and others) to question what is going on. Are you integrating over the complete top hemisphere (as Set A indicates) or only over the ‘sunlit half’ of that ‘top hemisphere’ (as per Set B)?

If you are changing from Set A to Set B because of the “Ti = 0″ portion of equation (4), to avoid confusing us wizards, I think you need to make that quite explicit and state reasons why the change occurs in integration limits between step 1 and step 2 in the derivation of (5).

Consult a textbook on atmospheric physics to get the answers to your questions ….

“At a planetary level, the effect is manifest in Chinook winds, where adiabatically heated downslope airflow raises the local temperature by 20C-30C in a matter of hours.”
Would you explain on how the ATE is manifest here?

Well, I don’t need a textbook to know what the Wet and Dry Adiabatic Lapse rates are, I do know what rain is , so I’m perfectly capable of explaining the Chinook winds without any Atmopheric Temperature Effect.
Hence my question why you consider it a manifestion of the ATE.

Your work is now being discussed on the “Bishop Hill” blogsite in the UK, in the discussion thread, entitled “United Theory of Climate”. Several expert scientists often comment there.

You probably need this like a hole in the head, with all of the activity here and at WUWT, however, if anyone there produces anything useful to add to the debate I am sure that I or someone else will alert you, so please do not feel that you have to monitor this continuously.

No problem at all Ned! I think you will find the Huffman method stimulating and not counter to your work. You might, though, also want to answer Harry’s other observation about the apparent ‘super accuracy’ of some of your Table 1 data.

Re. the Wiki idea, I will contact you separately on this but please note that this did not refer to Wikipedia but to a proposed Wiki specifically for Climate Science.

N&Z,
might I suggest that when you come to publish a paper in a journal one day, that you structure it in at least three main parts:
1) A general discussion
2) Some empirical evidence from lab tests somewhat as done by Konrad
3) Mathematical evidence that you can show a fit with a limited number of available planets/moons.
One point is that item 3) seems to be the area where there is the most resistance from the dogmatists, whom cannot emerge from behind the covers of their textbooks and lecture notes. (how you can evade such experts in journal peer review is a difficulty without lab data, maybe?)
Another point, 2), is that if you can call on a horde of students and an engineering workshop, you should be able to construct some convincing experiment series with varying pressure. (not constrained by a pressure vessel as in that silly analogy from Ira Glickstein). And, if you have the resources, varying gas species, and varying energy inputs. Such data on nicely constructed graphs would be hard for reviewers to deny, maybe?

It is typically smile producing that Joel Shore has made the following arrogant statement concerning Konrad’s low budget experiment:

[Joel:] Sorry…but one poorly conceived and carried out experiment [by Konrad] does not overturn more than a century’s worth of physics even when it tells you what you want to believe. Konrad hasn’t even tried to figure out how his data, even if correct, could be compatible with well-understood physics.

Amongst other things, I intend to ask this elitist dogmatist, if he could cast his great wisdom as to what the errors were in the experiment. (and how it might be improved if we had the sort of funding that he might be receiving from the public purse). Oh and BTW, an empirical result supporting N&Z may not have an explanation available in the current church dogma.

Ned & Karl,
I see that this is all shaping up rather like a typical US presidential election.
First the allies on one side tear each other to pieces for months.
Then they combine to tear up the other side.

Once a majority of realists (scpetics) are convinced, it will be time for the true believers to start attacking each other.
Then the media and finally the political world will sit up and take notice.
then the long slog of correcting the economic damage already done, can commence.

Roger,
…
on Venus, where the surface becomes nearly isothermal,
…
This is because of the increased efficiency of lateral heat transport by the atmosphere.

One mechanism (much more likely than circulation, which is very slow and sluggish there) is CO2 ↔CO2 radiative exchange, very efficient at those temps and densities. Kind of a radiative short-circuit around the whole planet.

For a constant Teff radiated energy, two hemispheres of a planet can have significantly different temperatures that, when area averaged (as I believe is currently done), will produce significantly variable Tavg for the entire planet. Again, this means the Tavg(MST) can vary as in the example below for constant Teff=255K:

For the above, using earth parameters in MS Excel, at constant total S-B radiated energy for Teff=255K, Tc is the independent variable from 150K to 255K, resulting in Th of 298.6K down to 255K.

It is not, no surprise, linear.

Tavg(MST) ranges from 224.3K up to 255K. All for same Teff=255K.

Range of Tc: +105.0K
Range of Th: -43.6K
Range of Tavg: +30.7K

What this implies to me is that areal Tavg(MST) of the earth can rise (or fall) but that says nothing about the total energy change of the system. More information needed.

I do not know where to find if a gridded Temp–> Energy global map is maintained, would love to see it if anyone can point me to it. If my fu were stronger, a gridded global anomaly dataset plus gridded area dataset could easily be used to calculate the current actual energy change over baseline.

Cheers,
Bill

[good use of the <pre> tag, closed by </pre>, which stands for preformatted, as ever only works if the user gets it exactly right, otherwise WordPress strips it out –Tim]

I am late to this CAGW skeptic party, but aware of the “smearing” of temps from one location to another 250?km up to 1200km away…. seems to me this should be looked at from an areal perspective…. from what grid size to what new grid size… that can be a significant false radiative energy transfer, in either positive or negative terms.

I have done my own (simplistic) zonal temp –> energy analysis based on:

that shows 50% of the energy is attributed to above latitude 60N and only 15% for the entire southern hemisphere…

I made my post on the other one but I will put it here too.
The effect of rotation where many bloggers were suspicious.
It’s very simple, there are 2 cases; a. non-rotating b. infinity rotating.
Case b is the most interesting, at infinite rotation the temperature approaches to become isothermal and the increase in temperature per single rotation becomes infinitisemal small. This means that the exponential temp almost equals the arithmetic average temperature.
So rotation do converge as stated by A.Smith(2008), it’s not a fallacy as mentioned by NZ.

[…] This figure agrees well with the theoretical calculations made in Nikolov and Zeller’s paper ‘Reply to comments on the UTC part 1‘, which arrives at a figure of 155K. This possible error of around 6K is a lot less than the […]

[…] in January, hot on the heels of revalations regarding the Moon’s temperature made by Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller here at the talkshop, Willis Eschenbach published an article at WUWT entitled “The Moon is a […]

[…] This line of research is highly relevant to the theoretical work of Hans Jelbring, and also Nikolov and Zeller, who have proposed hypotheses to explain the thermal gradient found in the atmosphere causing the […]